Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1741

control, N = 871

treatment, N = 871

p-value2

age

172

50.73 ± 12.67 (25 - 75)

50.82 ± 12.91 (25 - 75)

50.65 ± 12.50 (28 - 73)

0.931

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

174

0.708

f

138 (79%)

68 (78%)

70 (80%)

m

36 (21%)

19 (22%)

17 (20%)

occupation

174

0.914

day_training

4 (2.3%)

2 (2.3%)

2 (2.3%)

full_time

22 (13%)

12 (14%)

10 (11%)

homemaker

18 (10%)

8 (9.2%)

10 (11%)

other

2 (1.1%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.3%)

part_time

32 (18%)

16 (18%)

16 (18%)

retired

43 (25%)

21 (24%)

22 (25%)

self_employ

7 (4.0%)

4 (4.6%)

3 (3.4%)

student

2 (1.1%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.3%)

t_and_e

2 (1.1%)

1 (1.1%)

1 (1.1%)

unemploy

42 (24%)

23 (26%)

19 (22%)

marital

174

0.972

cohabitation

1 (0.6%)

0 (0%)

1 (1.1%)

divore

19 (11%)

11 (13%)

8 (9.2%)

in_relationship

4 (2.3%)

2 (2.3%)

2 (2.3%)

married

53 (30%)

25 (29%)

28 (32%)

none

84 (48%)

42 (48%)

42 (48%)

seperation

3 (1.7%)

2 (2.3%)

1 (1.1%)

widow

10 (5.7%)

5 (5.7%)

5 (5.7%)

edu

174

0.393

bachelor

40 (23%)

16 (18%)

24 (28%)

diploma

32 (18%)

21 (24%)

11 (13%)

hd_ad

5 (2.9%)

4 (4.6%)

1 (1.1%)

postgraduate

15 (8.6%)

8 (9.2%)

7 (8.0%)

primary

12 (6.9%)

5 (5.7%)

7 (8.0%)

secondary_1_3

19 (11%)

10 (11%)

9 (10%)

secondary_4_5

42 (24%)

19 (22%)

23 (26%)

secondary_6_7

9 (5.2%)

4 (4.6%)

5 (5.7%)

fam_income

174

0.713

10001_12000

6 (3.4%)

2 (2.3%)

4 (4.6%)

12001_14000

10 (5.7%)

4 (4.6%)

6 (6.9%)

14001_16000

8 (4.6%)

3 (3.4%)

5 (5.7%)

16001_18000

4 (2.3%)

2 (2.3%)

2 (2.3%)

18001_20000

8 (4.6%)

6 (6.9%)

2 (2.3%)

20001_above

33 (19%)

20 (23%)

13 (15%)

2001_4000

24 (14%)

13 (15%)

11 (13%)

4001_6000

19 (11%)

7 (8.0%)

12 (14%)

6001_8000

16 (9.2%)

9 (10%)

7 (8.0%)

8001_10000

14 (8.0%)

7 (8.0%)

7 (8.0%)

below_2000

32 (18%)

14 (16%)

18 (21%)

medication

174

155 (89%)

77 (89%)

78 (90%)

0.808

onset_duration

172

15.46 ± 10.38 (0 - 56)

16.00 ± 11.34 (0 - 56)

14.90 ± 9.34 (0 - 35)

0.492

Unknown

2

0

2

onset_age

170

35.39 ± 13.56 (10 - 65)

34.68 ± 12.42 (10 - 61)

36.10 ± 14.64 (14 - 65)

0.495

Unknown

4

2

2

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1741

control, N = 871

treatment, N = 871

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

174

3.10 ± 1.19 (1 - 5)

3.14 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

3.07 ± 1.16 (1 - 5)

0.704

recovery_stage_b

174

17.82 ± 2.83 (8 - 24)

17.91 ± 2.88 (8 - 24)

17.72 ± 2.79 (9 - 24)

0.669

ras_confidence

174

29.74 ± 5.26 (14 - 45)

29.33 ± 5.14 (14 - 40)

30.14 ± 5.38 (18 - 45)

0.315

ras_willingness

174

11.79 ± 2.02 (5 - 15)

11.74 ± 2.02 (5 - 15)

11.85 ± 2.03 (7 - 15)

0.709

ras_goal

174

17.42 ± 3.12 (7 - 25)

17.17 ± 3.01 (7 - 24)

17.67 ± 3.22 (11 - 25)

0.297

ras_reliance

174

13.31 ± 2.89 (5 - 20)

13.08 ± 2.80 (5 - 18)

13.54 ± 2.97 (7 - 20)

0.295

ras_domination

174

9.76 ± 2.42 (3 - 15)

9.94 ± 2.49 (3 - 15)

9.59 ± 2.36 (3 - 15)

0.334

symptom

174

30.04 ± 9.17 (14 - 56)

30.28 ± 9.58 (14 - 55)

29.80 ± 8.78 (15 - 56)

0.736

slof_work

174

22.32 ± 4.76 (10 - 30)

22.52 ± 4.37 (12 - 30)

22.11 ± 5.14 (10 - 30)

0.579

slof_relationship

174

25.30 ± 5.90 (9 - 35)

24.97 ± 5.88 (9 - 35)

25.64 ± 5.93 (11 - 35)

0.450

satisfaction

174

20.33 ± 7.12 (5 - 35)

19.48 ± 6.96 (5 - 33)

21.18 ± 7.22 (5 - 35)

0.115

mhc_emotional

174

10.74 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

10.47 ± 3.68 (3 - 17)

11.01 ± 3.83 (3 - 18)

0.345

mhc_social

174

14.98 ± 5.55 (5 - 30)

14.80 ± 5.54 (5 - 30)

15.16 ± 5.59 (5 - 29)

0.673

mhc_psychological

174

21.61 ± 6.46 (6 - 36)

21.34 ± 6.31 (7 - 36)

21.89 ± 6.62 (6 - 36)

0.582

resilisnce

174

16.32 ± 4.69 (6 - 30)

15.72 ± 4.25 (6 - 24)

16.91 ± 5.05 (6 - 30)

0.096

social_provision

174

13.52 ± 2.85 (5 - 20)

13.14 ± 2.67 (5 - 20)

13.90 ± 3.00 (5 - 20)

0.080

els_value_living

174

16.93 ± 3.17 (5 - 25)

16.64 ± 3.03 (6 - 22)

17.21 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)

0.243

els_life_fulfill

174

12.68 ± 3.38 (4 - 20)

12.20 ± 3.32 (5 - 19)

13.16 ± 3.39 (4 - 20)

0.059

els

174

29.60 ± 6.00 (9 - 45)

28.84 ± 5.75 (11 - 39)

30.37 ± 6.18 (9 - 45)

0.093

social_connect

174

26.63 ± 9.27 (8 - 48)

27.16 ± 8.93 (8 - 48)

26.10 ± 9.63 (8 - 48)

0.454

shs_agency

174

14.26 ± 5.11 (3 - 24)

13.72 ± 4.76 (3 - 21)

14.80 ± 5.41 (3 - 24)

0.164

shs_pathway

174

15.93 ± 4.18 (3 - 24)

15.37 ± 4.17 (3 - 24)

16.48 ± 4.14 (4 - 24)

0.078

shs

174

30.19 ± 8.90 (6 - 48)

29.09 ± 8.57 (6 - 45)

31.29 ± 9.14 (7 - 48)

0.104

esteem

174

12.62 ± 1.57 (9 - 20)

12.62 ± 1.61 (9 - 18)

12.62 ± 1.54 (10 - 20)

>0.999

mlq_search

174

14.87 ± 3.58 (3 - 21)

14.52 ± 3.59 (4 - 21)

15.23 ± 3.55 (3 - 21)

0.190

mlq_presence

174

13.33 ± 4.42 (3 - 21)

13.18 ± 4.15 (3 - 21)

13.47 ± 4.69 (3 - 21)

0.669

mlq

174

28.20 ± 7.12 (6 - 42)

27.70 ± 6.80 (7 - 40)

28.70 ± 7.43 (6 - 42)

0.356

empower

174

19.12 ± 4.33 (6 - 30)

18.69 ± 4.15 (9 - 30)

19.55 ± 4.48 (6 - 30)

0.189

ismi_resistance

174

14.40 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)

14.39 ± 2.34 (6 - 20)

14.40 ± 2.84 (5 - 20)

0.977

ismi_discrimation

174

11.66 ± 3.05 (5 - 20)

11.84 ± 2.88 (5 - 20)

11.48 ± 3.21 (5 - 20)

0.442

sss_affective

174

10.22 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

10.15 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)

10.30 ± 3.73 (3 - 18)

0.787

sss_behavior

174

9.90 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

9.98 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)

9.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

0.778

sss_cognitive

174

8.43 ± 3.70 (3 - 18)

8.34 ± 3.60 (3 - 18)

8.51 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

0.775

sss

174

28.55 ± 10.30 (9 - 54)

28.47 ± 10.12 (9 - 54)

28.62 ± 10.53 (9 - 54)

0.924

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.14

0.127

2.89, 3.39

group

control

treatment

-0.069

0.179

-0.420, 0.282

0.701

time_point

1st

2nd

0.183

0.181

-0.171, 0.538

0.313

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.274

0.262

-0.240, 0.788

0.298

Pseudo R square

0.018

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.308

17.3, 18.5

group

control

treatment

-0.184

0.436

-1.04, 0.670

0.673

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.207

0.387

-0.965, 0.551

0.594

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.856

0.562

-0.244, 1.96

0.130

Pseudo R square

0.006

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.3

0.563

28.2, 30.4

group

control

treatment

0.805

0.797

-0.757, 2.37

0.314

time_point

1st

2nd

0.937

0.566

-0.173, 2.05

0.101

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.03

0.824

-0.583, 2.65

0.214

Pseudo R square

0.029

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.7

0.215

11.3, 12.2

group

control

treatment

0.115

0.304

-0.480, 0.710

0.705

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.067

0.242

-0.541, 0.407

0.782

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.455

0.351

-0.233, 1.14

0.198

Pseudo R square

0.008

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.338

16.5, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.494

0.479

-0.444, 1.43

0.303

time_point

1st

2nd

0.171

0.382

-0.578, 0.921

0.655

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.605

0.556

-0.485, 1.69

0.279

Pseudo R square

0.018

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.310

12.5, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.460

0.438

-0.399, 1.32

0.295

time_point

1st

2nd

0.321

0.334

-0.334, 0.975

0.339

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.458

0.485

-0.493, 1.41

0.348

Pseudo R square

0.019

ras_domination

(Intercept)

9.94

0.256

9.44, 10.4

group

control

treatment

-0.356

0.361

-1.06, 0.352

0.325

time_point

1st

2nd

0.086

0.343

-0.586, 0.758

0.802

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.936

0.498

-0.039, 1.91

0.063

Pseudo R square

0.019

symptom

(Intercept)

30.3

0.978

28.4, 32.2

group

control

treatment

-0.471

1.383

-3.18, 2.24

0.734

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.61

0.825

-3.22, 0.011

0.055

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.134

1.201

-2.49, 2.22

0.911

Pseudo R square

0.008

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.5

0.508

21.5, 23.5

group

control

treatment

-0.402

0.718

-1.81, 1.01

0.576

time_point

1st

2nd

0.006

0.510

-0.993, 1.00

0.991

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.304

0.741

-1.15, 1.76

0.683

Pseudo R square

0.002

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.0

0.624

23.7, 26.2

group

control

treatment

0.678

0.883

-1.05, 2.41

0.443

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.129

0.672

-1.45, 1.19

0.848

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.528

0.977

-1.39, 2.44

0.590

Pseudo R square

0.006

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.5

0.760

18.0, 21.0

group

control

treatment

1.70

1.075

-0.405, 3.81

0.115

time_point

1st

2nd

0.833

0.710

-0.559, 2.22

0.244

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.797

1.033

-1.23, 2.82

0.443

Pseudo R square

0.025

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.5

0.402

9.68, 11.3

group

control

treatment

0.540

0.569

-0.575, 1.66

0.344

time_point

1st

2nd

0.567

0.368

-0.154, 1.29

0.127

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.354

0.535

-1.40, 0.695

0.510

Pseudo R square

0.006

mhc_social

(Intercept)

14.8

0.620

13.6, 16.0

group

control

treatment

0.356

0.876

-1.36, 2.07

0.685

time_point

1st

2nd

1.07

0.647

-0.203, 2.33

0.103

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.304

0.941

-2.15, 1.54

0.747

Pseudo R square

0.006

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.3

0.711

20.0, 22.7

group

control

treatment

0.540

1.006

-1.43, 2.51

0.592

time_point

1st

2nd

1.17

0.734

-0.266, 2.61

0.114

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.338

1.067

-2.43, 1.75

0.752

Pseudo R square

0.006

resilisnce

(Intercept)

15.7

0.485

14.8, 16.7

group

control

treatment

1.18

0.686

-0.161, 2.53

0.086

time_point

1st

2nd

0.672

0.550

-0.405, 1.75

0.224

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.939

0.799

-0.627, 2.50

0.243

Pseudo R square

0.040

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.1

0.306

12.5, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.759

0.432

-0.088, 1.61

0.081

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.372

0.335

-1.03, 0.284

0.268

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.751

0.487

-0.203, 1.70

0.126

Pseudo R square

0.034

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.6

0.342

16.0, 17.3

group

control

treatment

0.563

0.483

-0.384, 1.51

0.245

time_point

1st

2nd

0.314

0.352

-0.376, 1.00

0.375

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.245

0.512

-0.758, 1.25

0.633

Pseudo R square

0.014

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.2

0.350

11.5, 12.9

group

control

treatment

0.966

0.496

-0.006, 1.94

0.053

time_point

1st

2nd

0.390

0.334

-0.263, 1.04

0.245

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.163

0.485

-0.788, 1.11

0.738

Pseudo R square

0.028

els

(Intercept)

28.8

0.637

27.6, 30.1

group

control

treatment

1.53

0.901

-0.237, 3.29

0.091

time_point

1st

2nd

0.718

0.573

-0.405, 1.84

0.213

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.315

0.833

-1.32, 1.95

0.706

Pseudo R square

0.023

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.2

0.998

25.2, 29.1

group

control

treatment

-1.06

1.412

-3.82, 1.71

0.455

time_point

1st

2nd

0.054

0.907

-1.72, 1.83

0.952

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.85

1.319

-5.43, -0.263

0.033

Pseudo R square

0.020

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.7

0.541

12.7, 14.8

group

control

treatment

1.08

0.765

-0.420, 2.58

0.160

time_point

1st

2nd

0.427

0.499

-0.551, 1.41

0.394

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.475

0.727

-0.949, 1.90

0.515

Pseudo R square

0.018

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.4

0.435

14.5, 16.2

group

control

treatment

1.11

0.616

-0.092, 2.32

0.072

time_point

1st

2nd

0.548

0.417

-0.269, 1.36

0.192

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.236

0.606

-1.42, 0.953

0.698

Pseudo R square

0.018

shs

(Intercept)

29.1

0.932

27.3, 30.9

group

control

treatment

2.20

1.318

-0.389, 4.78

0.098

time_point

1st

2nd

0.966

0.851

-0.702, 2.63

0.259

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.227

1.238

-2.20, 2.65

0.855

Pseudo R square

0.020

esteem

(Intercept)

12.6

0.166

12.3, 12.9

group

control

treatment

0.000

0.234

-0.459, 0.459

1.00

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.165

0.228

-0.612, 0.282

0.470

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.282

0.331

-0.366, 0.931

0.395

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.5

0.376

13.8, 15.3

group

control

treatment

0.713

0.531

-0.329, 1.75

0.181

time_point

1st

2nd

0.915

0.459

0.014, 1.81

0.049

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.03

0.667

-2.33, 0.282

0.127

Pseudo R square

0.011

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.2

0.464

12.3, 14.1

group

control

treatment

0.287

0.656

-0.999, 1.57

0.662

time_point

1st

2nd

0.896

0.518

-0.120, 1.91

0.087

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.228

0.753

-1.70, 1.25

0.762

Pseudo R square

0.008

mlq

(Intercept)

27.7

0.754

26.2, 29.2

group

control

treatment

1.00

1.066

-1.09, 3.09

0.349

time_point

1st

2nd

1.82

0.872

0.109, 3.53

0.040

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.24

1.267

-3.72, 1.24

0.330

Pseudo R square

0.010

empower

(Intercept)

18.7

0.460

17.8, 19.6

group

control

treatment

0.862

0.651

-0.414, 2.14

0.187

time_point

1st

2nd

1.06

0.472

0.139, 1.99

0.027

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.07

0.686

-2.42, 0.271

0.121

Pseudo R square

0.010

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.269

13.9, 14.9

group

control

treatment

0.011

0.380

-0.733, 0.756

0.976

time_point

1st

2nd

0.118

0.332

-0.533, 0.768

0.723

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.512

0.482

-0.432, 1.46

0.290

Pseudo R square

0.008

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.333

11.2, 12.5

group

control

treatment

-0.356

0.470

-1.28, 0.565

0.449

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.226

0.438

-1.08, 0.631

0.606

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.588

0.635

-1.83, 0.657

0.356

Pseudo R square

0.015

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.1

0.390

9.38, 10.9

group

control

treatment

0.149

0.552

-0.932, 1.23

0.787

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.018

0.379

-0.760, 0.725

0.962

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.22

0.551

-2.30, -0.140

0.029

Pseudo R square

0.013

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

9.98

0.399

9.20, 10.8

group

control

treatment

-0.161

0.564

-1.27, 0.944

0.776

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.285

0.388

-1.05, 0.476

0.464

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.404

0.565

-1.51, 0.704

0.477

Pseudo R square

0.006

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.34

0.392

7.58, 9.11

group

control

treatment

0.161

0.554

-0.925, 1.25

0.772

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.117

0.406

-0.913, 0.679

0.774

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.777

0.591

-1.93, 0.381

0.192

Pseudo R square

0.007

sss

(Intercept)

28.5

1.100

26.3, 30.6

group

control

treatment

0.149

1.556

-2.90, 3.20

0.924

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.467

0.982

-2.39, 1.46

0.636

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.21

1.429

-5.01, 0.594

0.126

Pseudo R square

0.008

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.39) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.14 (95% CI [2.89, 3.39], t(253) = 24.78, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.28], t(253) = -0.39, p = 0.700; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.24])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.54], t(253) = 1.01, p = 0.311; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.79], t(253) = 1.04, p = 0.296; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.67])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.23e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.91 (95% CI [17.30, 18.51], t(253) = 58.12, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.67], t(253) = -0.42, p = 0.673; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.55], t(253) = -0.54, p = 0.593; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.96], t(253) = 1.52, p = 0.127; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.68])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.33 (95% CI [28.23, 30.44], t(253) = 52.06, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.76, 2.37], t(253) = 1.01, p = 0.313; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.17, 2.05], t(253) = 1.65, p = 0.098; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.65], t(253) = 1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.28e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.74 (95% CI [11.31, 12.16], t(253) = 54.66, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.71], t(253) = 0.38, p = 0.705; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.41], t(253) = -0.28, p = 0.781; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.14], t(253) = 1.30, p = 0.195; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.17 (95% CI [16.51, 17.84], t(253) = 50.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.43], t(253) = 1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.92], t(253) = 0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.69], t(253) = 1.09, p = 0.277; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.08 (95% CI [12.47, 13.69], t(253) = 42.23, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.32], t(253) = 1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.98], t(253) = 0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.41], t(253) = 0.94, p = 0.345; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.94 (95% CI [9.44, 10.44], t(253) = 38.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.35], t(253) = -0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.15])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.76], t(253) = 0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.91], t(253) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.80])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.28 (95% CI [28.36, 32.19], t(253) = 30.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-3.18, 2.24], t(253) = -0.34, p = 0.733; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.24])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.61, 95% CI [-3.22, 0.01], t(253) = -1.95, p = 0.052; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.22e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-2.49, 2.22], t(253) = -0.11, p = 0.911; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.52 (95% CI [21.52, 23.51], t(253) = 44.33, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.81, 1.01], t(253) = -0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 5.50e-03, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.00], t(253) = 0.01, p = 0.991; Std. beta = 1.17e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-1.15, 1.76], t(253) = 0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.84e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.97 (95% CI [23.74, 26.19], t(253) = 40.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.05, 2.41], t(253) = 0.77, p = 0.442; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.45, 1.19], t(253) = -0.19, p = 0.848; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.39, 2.44], t(253) = 0.54, p = 0.589; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.48 (95% CI [17.99, 20.97], t(253) = 25.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [-0.40, 3.81], t(253) = 1.58, p = 0.113; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.56, 2.22], t(253) = 1.17, p = 0.241; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-1.23, 2.82], t(253) = 0.77, p = 0.441; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.98e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.47 (95% CI [9.68, 11.26], t(253) = 26.02, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.66], t(253) = 0.95, p = 0.343; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.29], t(253) = 1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.70], t(253) = -0.66, p = 0.509; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.80 (95% CI [13.59, 16.02], t(253) = 23.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.07], t(253) = 0.41, p = 0.684; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 2.33], t(253) = 1.65, p = 0.100; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-2.15, 1.54], t(253) = -0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.16e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.34 (95% CI [19.95, 22.74], t(253) = 30.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.51], t(253) = 0.54, p = 0.591; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-0.27, 2.61], t(253) = 1.60, p = 0.110; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-2.43, 1.75], t(253) = -0.32, p = 0.752; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.72 (95% CI [14.77, 16.68], t(253) = 32.40, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.16, 2.53], t(253) = 1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.75], t(253) = 1.22, p = 0.221; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.50], t(253) = 1.18, p = 0.240; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.54, 13.74], t(253) = 43.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.61], t(253) = 1.76, p = 0.079; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.28], t(253) = -1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.70], t(253) = 1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.59])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.64 (95% CI [15.97, 17.31], t(253) = 48.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.51], t(253) = 1.17, p = 0.244; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.00], t(253) = 0.89, p = 0.372; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.25], t(253) = 0.48, p = 0.631; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.20 (95% CI [11.51, 12.88], t(253) = 34.80, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-5.87e-03, 1.94], t(253) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.78e-03, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.04], t(253) = 1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.11], t(253) = 0.34, p = 0.737; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.84 (95% CI [27.59, 30.09], t(253) = 45.26, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.53, 95% CI [-0.24, 3.29], t(253) = 1.70, p = 0.090; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.84], t(253) = 1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.32, 1.95], t(253) = 0.38, p = 0.706; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.16 (95% CI [25.20, 29.12], t(253) = 27.20, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-3.82, 1.71], t(253) = -0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.18])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-1.72, 1.83], t(253) = 0.06, p = 0.952; Std. beta = 5.76e-03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.85, 95% CI [-5.43, -0.26], t(253) = -2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.58, -0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.72 (95% CI [12.66, 14.78], t(253) = 25.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.42, 2.58], t(253) = 1.41, p = 0.158; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.41], t(253) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.90], t(253) = 0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.37 (95% CI [14.51, 16.22], t(253) = 35.29, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-0.09, 2.32], t(253) = 1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.36], t(253) = 1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.42, 0.95], t(253) = -0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.09 (95% CI [27.26, 30.92], t(253) = 31.20, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.20, 95% CI [-0.39, 4.78], t(253) = 1.67, p = 0.096; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.63], t(253) = 1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-2.20, 2.65], t(253) = 0.18, p = 0.854; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.43) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.62 (95% CI [12.30, 12.95], t(253) = 76.18, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.63e-14, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.46], t(253) = -6.95e-14, p > .999; Std. beta = 2.86e-16, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.28], t(253) = -0.72, p = 0.469; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.93], t(253) = 0.85, p = 0.394; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.52 (95% CI [13.78, 15.25], t(253) = 38.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.75], t(253) = 1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [0.01, 1.81], t(253) = 1.99, p = 0.046; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [4.12e-03, 0.52])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-2.33, 0.28], t(253) = -1.54, p = 0.124; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.88e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.18 (95% CI [12.27, 14.09], t(253) = 28.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.57], t(253) = 0.44, p = 0.661; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.91], t(253) = 1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.70, 1.25], t(253) = -0.30, p = 0.762; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.70 (95% CI [26.22, 29.18], t(253) = 36.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-1.09, 3.09], t(253) = 0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.82, 95% CI [0.11, 3.53], t(253) = 2.09, p = 0.037; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.50])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.24, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.24], t(253) = -0.98, p = 0.328; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.69 (95% CI [17.79, 19.59], t(253) = 40.59, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.14], t(253) = 1.32, p = 0.186; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [0.14, 1.99], t(253) = 2.25, p = 0.024; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [0.03, 0.47])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.07, 95% CI [-2.42, 0.27], t(253) = -1.56, p = 0.118; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.39 (95% CI [13.86, 14.92], t(253) = 53.54, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.76], t(253) = 0.03, p = 0.976; Std. beta = 4.57e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.77], t(253) = 0.35, p = 0.723; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.46], t(253) = 1.06, p = 0.288; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.58])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.84 (95% CI [11.19, 12.49], t(253) = 35.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.28, 0.57], t(253) = -0.76, p = 0.449; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.18])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.63], t(253) = -0.52, p = 0.605; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.83, 0.66], t(253) = -0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.15 (95% CI [9.38, 10.91], t(253) = 26.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.23], t(253) = 0.27, p = 0.787; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.72], t(253) = -0.05, p = 0.962; Std. beta = -4.89e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-2.30, -0.14], t(253) = -2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.63, -0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.72e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.98 (95% CI [9.20, 10.76], t(253) = 25.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.94], t(253) = -0.29, p = 0.775; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.05, 0.48], t(253) = -0.73, p = 0.463; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.51, 0.70], t(253) = -0.71, p = 0.475; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.34 (95% CI [7.58, 9.11], t(253) = 21.30, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.25], t(253) = 0.29, p = 0.772; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.68], t(253) = -0.29, p = 0.773; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-1.93, 0.38], t(253) = -1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.06e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.47 (95% CI [26.31, 30.63], t(253) = 25.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-2.90, 3.20], t(253) = 0.10, p = 0.923; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-2.39, 1.46], t(253) = -0.48, p = 0.635; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.21, 95% CI [-5.01, 0.59], t(253) = -1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

816.718

827.388

-405.359

810.718

recovery_stage_a

random

6

816.009

837.350

-402.005

804.009

6.709

3

0.082

recovery_stage_b

null

3

1,257.127

1,267.797

-625.563

1,251.127

recovery_stage_b

random

6

1,260.254

1,281.595

-624.127

1,248.254

2.873

3

0.412

ras_confidence

null

3

1,549.446

1,560.116

-771.723

1,543.446

ras_confidence

random

6

1,540.451

1,561.792

-764.225

1,528.451

14.995

3

0.002

ras_willingness

null

3

1,054.713

1,065.383

-524.356

1,048.713

ras_willingness

random

6

1,057.649

1,078.990

-522.825

1,045.649

3.064

3

0.382

ras_goal

null

3

1,293.864

1,304.535

-643.932

1,287.864

ras_goal

random

6

1,293.947

1,315.288

-640.973

1,281.947

5.918

3

0.116

ras_reliance

null

3

1,242.695

1,253.365

-618.347

1,236.695

ras_reliance

random

6

1,241.097

1,262.438

-614.549

1,229.097

7.598

3

0.055

ras_domination

null

3

1,174.254

1,184.924

-584.127

1,168.254

ras_domination

random

6

1,172.125

1,193.466

-580.062

1,160.125

8.129

3

0.043

symptom

null

3

1,800.251

1,810.921

-897.125

1,794.251

symptom

random

6

1,798.562

1,819.903

-893.281

1,786.562

7.689

3

0.053

slof_work

null

3

1,480.977

1,491.648

-737.489

1,474.977

slof_work

random

6

1,486.417

1,507.758

-737.208

1,474.417

0.560

3

0.905

slof_relationship

null

3

1,599.125

1,609.795

-796.562

1,593.125

slof_relationship

random

6

1,603.824

1,625.165

-795.912

1,591.824

1.301

3

0.729

satisfaction

null

3

1,687.358

1,698.029

-840.679

1,681.358

satisfaction

random

6

1,684.052

1,705.393

-836.026

1,672.052

9.306

3

0.025

mhc_emotional

null

3

1,348.637

1,359.307

-671.319

1,342.637

mhc_emotional

random

6

1,351.303

1,372.644

-669.652

1,339.303

3.334

3

0.343

mhc_social

null

3

1,593.596

1,604.266

-793.798

1,587.596

mhc_social

random

6

1,595.560

1,616.901

-791.780

1,583.560

4.035

3

0.258

mhc_psychological

null

3

1,663.025

1,673.696

-828.513

1,657.025

mhc_psychological

random

6

1,665.113

1,686.454

-826.557

1,653.113

3.912

3

0.271

resilisnce

null

3

1,488.741

1,499.412

-741.371

1,482.741

resilisnce

random

6

1,481.036

1,502.377

-734.518

1,469.036

13.705

3

0.003

social_provision

null

3

1,238.123

1,248.793

-616.061

1,232.123

social_provision

random

6

1,236.372

1,257.713

-612.186

1,224.372

7.751

3

0.051

els_value_living

null

3

1,283.904

1,294.575

-638.952

1,277.904

els_value_living

random

6

1,285.066

1,306.407

-636.533

1,273.066

4.838

3

0.184

els_life_fulfill

null

3

1,288.131

1,298.801

-641.065

1,282.131

els_life_fulfill

random

6

1,286.004

1,307.345

-637.002

1,274.004

8.127

3

0.043

els

null

3

1,588.527

1,599.198

-791.264

1,582.527

els

random

6

1,586.764

1,608.105

-787.382

1,574.764

7.763

3

0.051

social_connect

null

3

1,825.038

1,835.709

-909.519

1,819.038

social_connect

random

6

1,820.961

1,842.302

-904.481

1,808.961

10.077

3

0.018

shs_agency

null

3

1,506.505

1,517.175

-750.253

1,500.505

shs_agency

random

6

1,506.274

1,527.615

-747.137

1,494.274

6.231

3

0.101

shs_pathway

null

3

1,398.666

1,409.337

-696.333

1,392.666

shs_pathway

random

6

1,399.364

1,420.705

-693.682

1,387.364

5.302

3

0.151

shs

null

3

1,786.378

1,797.049

-890.189

1,780.378

shs

random

6

1,786.285

1,807.626

-887.143

1,774.285

6.093

3

0.107

esteem

null

3

945.773

956.444

-469.887

939.773

esteem

random

6

950.869

972.210

-469.434

938.869

0.905

3

0.824

mlq_search

null

3

1,358.023

1,368.694

-676.012

1,352.023

mlq_search

random

6

1,359.297

1,380.638

-673.648

1,347.297

4.726

3

0.193

mlq_presence

null

3

1,454.322

1,464.993

-724.161

1,448.322

mlq_presence

random

6

1,455.737

1,477.078

-721.869

1,443.737

4.585

3

0.205

mlq

null

3

1,711.419

1,722.089

-852.709

1,705.419

mlq

random

6

1,712.304

1,733.645

-850.152

1,700.304

5.115

3

0.164

empower

null

3

1,438.716

1,449.387

-716.358

1,432.716

empower

random

6

1,438.836

1,460.177

-713.418

1,426.836

5.880

3

0.118

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,184.785

1,195.456

-589.393

1,178.785

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,187.246

1,208.587

-587.623

1,175.246

3.539

3

0.316

ismi_discrimation

null

3

1,304.771

1,315.441

-649.385

1,298.771

ismi_discrimation

random

6

1,306.047

1,327.388

-647.024

1,294.047

4.724

3

0.193

sss_affective

null

3

1,348.306

1,358.976

-671.153

1,342.306

sss_affective

random

6

1,344.723

1,366.064

-666.362

1,332.723

9.583

3

0.022

sss_behavior

null

3

1,353.942

1,364.613

-673.971

1,347.942

sss_behavior

random

6

1,356.334

1,377.675

-672.167

1,344.334

3.608

3

0.307

sss_cognitive

null

3

1,355.465

1,366.135

-674.733

1,349.465

sss_cognitive

random

6

1,357.003

1,378.344

-672.502

1,345.003

4.462

3

0.216

sss

null

3

1,869.501

1,880.172

-931.751

1,863.501

sss

random

6

1,868.577

1,889.918

-928.288

1,856.577

6.924

3

0.074

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

87

3.14 ± 1.18

87

3.07 ± 1.18

0.701

0.074

recovery_stage_a

2nd

45

3.32 ± 1.14

-0.197

40

3.53 ± 1.14

-0.491

0.410

-0.220

recovery_stage_b

1st

87

17.91 ± 2.87

87

17.72 ± 2.87

0.673

0.095

recovery_stage_b

2nd

45

17.70 ± 2.67

0.106

40

18.37 ± 2.65

-0.334

0.245

-0.346

ras_confidence

1st

87

29.33 ± 5.26

87

30.14 ± 5.26

0.314

-0.289

ras_confidence

2nd

45

30.27 ± 4.56

-0.337

40

32.11 ± 4.47

-0.707

0.062

-0.660

ras_willingness

1st

87

11.74 ± 2.00

87

11.85 ± 2.00

0.705

-0.096

ras_willingness

2nd

45

11.67 ± 1.80

0.056

40

12.24 ± 1.77

-0.324

0.142

-0.475

ras_goal

1st

87

17.17 ± 3.16

87

17.67 ± 3.16

0.303

-0.260

ras_goal

2nd

45

17.34 ± 2.84

-0.090

40

18.44 ± 2.79

-0.409

0.074

-0.579

ras_reliance

1st

87

13.08 ± 2.89

87

13.54 ± 2.89

0.295

-0.279

ras_reliance

2nd

45

13.40 ± 2.56

-0.194

40

14.32 ± 2.52

-0.472

0.097

-0.556

ras_domination

1st

87

9.94 ± 2.38

87

9.59 ± 2.38

0.325

0.204

ras_domination

2nd

45

10.03 ± 2.26

-0.049

40

10.61 ± 2.25

-0.587

0.238

-0.333

symptom

1st

87

30.28 ± 9.12

87

29.80 ± 9.12

0.734

0.118

symptom

2nd

45

28.67 ± 7.56

0.401

40

28.07 ± 7.35

0.434

0.709

0.151

slof_work

1st

87

22.52 ± 4.74

87

22.11 ± 4.74

0.576

0.161

slof_work

2nd

45

22.52 ± 4.11

-0.002

40

22.42 ± 4.03

-0.124

0.911

0.039

slof_relationship

1st

87

24.97 ± 5.82

87

25.64 ± 5.82

0.443

-0.204

slof_relationship

2nd

45

24.84 ± 5.15

0.039

40

26.04 ± 5.07

-0.120

0.278

-0.363

satisfaction

1st

87

19.48 ± 7.09

87

21.18 ± 7.09

0.115

-0.490

satisfaction

2nd

45

20.32 ± 6.03

-0.240

40

22.81 ± 5.89

-0.470

0.055

-0.720

mhc_emotional

1st

87

10.47 ± 3.75

87

11.01 ± 3.75

0.344

-0.301

mhc_emotional

2nd

45

11.04 ± 3.17

-0.316

40

11.22 ± 3.10

-0.119

0.784

-0.104

mhc_social

1st

87

14.80 ± 5.78

87

15.16 ± 5.78

0.685

-0.112

mhc_social

2nd

45

15.87 ± 5.07

-0.334

40

15.92 ± 4.98

-0.239

0.962

-0.016

mhc_psychological

1st

87

21.34 ± 6.63

87

21.89 ± 6.63

0.592

-0.150

mhc_psychological

2nd

45

22.52 ± 5.80

-0.324

40

22.72 ± 5.69

-0.231

0.871

-0.056

resilisnce

1st

87

15.72 ± 4.53

87

16.91 ± 4.53

0.086

-0.434

resilisnce

2nd

45

16.40 ± 4.07

-0.246

40

18.52 ± 4.01

-0.590

0.016

-0.778

social_provision

1st

87

13.14 ± 2.85

87

13.90 ± 2.85

0.081

-0.458

social_provision

2nd

45

12.77 ± 2.54

0.225

40

14.27 ± 2.50

-0.228

0.006

-0.911

els_value_living

1st

87

16.64 ± 3.19

87

17.21 ± 3.19

0.245

-0.325

els_value_living

2nd

45

16.96 ± 2.78

-0.181

40

17.77 ± 2.73

-0.323

0.178

-0.467

els_life_fulfill

1st

87

12.20 ± 3.27

87

13.16 ± 3.27

0.053

-0.592

els_life_fulfill

2nd

45

12.59 ± 2.79

-0.239

40

13.71 ± 2.73

-0.339

0.061

-0.691

els

1st

87

28.84 ± 5.94

87

30.37 ± 5.94

0.091

-0.547

els

2nd

45

29.56 ± 5.00

-0.257

40

31.40 ± 4.88

-0.370

0.087

-0.660

social_connect

1st

87

27.16 ± 9.31

87

26.10 ± 9.31

0.455

0.239

social_connect

2nd

45

27.22 ± 7.86

-0.012

40

23.31 ± 7.67

0.632

0.021

0.883

shs_agency

1st

87

13.72 ± 5.05

87

14.80 ± 5.05

0.160

-0.443

shs_agency

2nd

45

14.15 ± 4.28

-0.175

40

15.71 ± 4.18

-0.370

0.091

-0.638

shs_pathway

1st

87

15.37 ± 4.06

87

16.48 ± 4.06

0.072

-0.547

shs_pathway

2nd

45

15.92 ± 3.47

-0.269

40

16.79 ± 3.40

-0.153

0.240

-0.431

shs

1st

87

29.09 ± 8.70

87

31.29 ± 8.70

0.098

-0.529

shs

2nd

45

30.06 ± 7.35

-0.233

40

32.48 ± 7.17

-0.287

0.126

-0.584

esteem

1st

87

12.62 ± 1.55

87

12.62 ± 1.55

1.000

0.000

esteem

2nd

45

12.46 ± 1.48

0.142

40

12.74 ± 1.47

-0.101

0.379

-0.242

mlq_search

1st

87

14.52 ± 3.50

87

15.23 ± 3.50

0.181

-0.310

mlq_search

2nd

45

15.43 ± 3.23

-0.397

40

15.12 ± 3.19

0.048

0.655

0.136

mlq_presence

1st

87

13.18 ± 4.33

87

13.47 ± 4.33

0.662

-0.112

mlq_presence

2nd

45

14.08 ± 3.87

-0.349

40

14.14 ± 3.82

-0.260

0.944

-0.023

mlq

1st

87

27.70 ± 7.03

87

28.70 ± 7.03

0.349

-0.230

mlq

2nd

45

29.52 ± 6.36

-0.419

40

29.28 ± 6.28

-0.133

0.862

0.055

empower

1st

87

18.69 ± 4.29

87

19.55 ± 4.29

0.187

-0.371

empower

2nd

45

19.75 ± 3.75

-0.458

40

19.54 ± 3.67

0.004

0.793

0.091

ismi_resistance

1st

87

14.39 ± 2.51

87

14.40 ± 2.51

0.976

-0.007

ismi_resistance

2nd

45

14.51 ± 2.32

-0.071

40

15.03 ± 2.29

-0.378

0.297

-0.314

ismi_discrimation

1st

87

11.84 ± 3.10

87

11.48 ± 3.10

0.449

0.161

ismi_discrimation

2nd

45

11.61 ± 2.93

0.102

40

10.67 ± 2.91

0.367

0.137

0.426

sss_affective

1st

87

10.15 ± 3.64

87

10.30 ± 3.64

0.787

-0.080

sss_affective

2nd

45

10.13 ± 3.13

0.010

40

9.06 ± 3.06

0.667

0.112

0.577

sss_behavior

1st

87

9.98 ± 3.72

87

9.82 ± 3.72

0.776

0.085

sss_behavior

2nd

45

9.69 ± 3.20

0.150

40

9.13 ± 3.13

0.362

0.412

0.297

sss_cognitive

1st

87

8.34 ± 3.65

87

8.51 ± 3.65

0.772

-0.080

sss_cognitive

2nd

45

8.23 ± 3.20

0.058

40

7.61 ± 3.14

0.447

0.372

0.308

sss

1st

87

28.47 ± 10.26

87

28.62 ± 10.26

0.924

-0.031

sss

2nd

45

28.00 ± 8.62

0.098

40

25.95 ± 8.41

0.559

0.267

0.430

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(234.10) = -0.39, p = 0.701, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.28)

2st

t(250.33) = 0.83, p = 0.410, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.28 to 0.69)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(217.31) = -0.42, p = 0.673, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.67)

2st

t(250.79) = 1.16, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.81)

ras_confidence

1st

t(198.36) = 1.01, p = 0.314, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.38)

2st

t(254.91) = 1.87, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.09 to 3.77)

ras_willingness

1st

t(206.62) = 0.38, p = 0.705, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.71)

2st

t(253.15) = 1.47, p = 0.142, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.33)

ras_goal

1st

t(206.98) = 1.03, p = 0.303, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.44)

2st

t(253.06) = 1.80, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.11 to 2.30)

ras_reliance

1st

t(203.17) = 1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.32)

2st

t(254.03) = 1.67, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.00)

ras_domination

1st

t(225.47) = -0.99, p = 0.325, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.07 to 0.36)

2st

t(250.02) = 1.18, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.55)

symptom

1st

t(189.52) = -0.34, p = 0.734, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.20 to 2.26)

2st

t(252.35) = -0.37, p = 0.709, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-3.79 to 2.58)

slof_work

1st

t(198.25) = -0.56, p = 0.576, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.82 to 1.01)

2st

t(254.92) = -0.11, p = 0.911, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.84 to 1.64)

slof_relationship

1st

t(203.07) = 0.77, p = 0.443, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.06 to 2.42)

2st

t(254.05) = 1.09, p = 0.278, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.98 to 3.39)

satisfaction

1st

t(194.21) = 1.58, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.82)

2st

t(254.77) = 1.93, p = 0.055, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-0.05 to 5.05)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(193.06) = 0.95, p = 0.344, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.66)

2st

t(254.46) = 0.27, p = 0.784, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.53)

mhc_social

1st

t(200.91) = 0.41, p = 0.685, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.08)

2st

t(254.52) = 0.05, p = 0.962, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.10 to 2.20)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(200.04) = 0.54, p = 0.592, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.44 to 2.52)

2st

t(254.68) = 0.16, p = 0.871, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.25 to 2.66)

resilisnce

1st

t(207.14) = 1.72, p = 0.086, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.54)

2st

t(253.02) = 2.42, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (0.39 to 3.85)

social_provision

1st

t(204.41) = 1.76, p = 0.081, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.61)

2st

t(253.72) = 2.76, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (0.43 to 2.59)

els_value_living

1st

t(199.93) = 1.17, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.52)

2st

t(254.70) = 1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.99)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(195.16) = 1.95, p = 0.053, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.94)

2st

t(254.92) = 1.88, p = 0.061, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.05 to 2.31)

els

1st

t(192.28) = 1.70, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.25 to 3.31)

2st

t(254.16) = 1.72, p = 0.087, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.27 to 3.96)

social_connect

1st

t(192.76) = -0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-3.84 to 1.73)

2st

t(254.36) = -2.32, p = 0.021, Cohen d = 0.88, 95% CI (-7.23 to -0.59)

shs_agency

1st

t(193.54) = 1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.43 to 2.59)

2st

t(254.61) = 1.69, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-0.25 to 3.36)

shs_pathway

1st

t(195.46) = 1.81, p = 0.072, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.10 to 2.33)

2st

t(254.95) = 1.18, p = 0.240, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.35)

shs

1st

t(193.01) = 1.67, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.41 to 4.80)

2st

t(254.45) = 1.54, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.68 to 5.53)

esteem

1st

t(228.95) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.46)

2st

t(250.01) = 0.88, p = 0.379, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.91)

mlq_search

1st

t(214.45) = 1.34, p = 0.181, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.76)

2st

t(251.30) = -0.45, p = 0.655, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.69 to 1.06)

mlq_presence

1st

t(205.98) = 0.44, p = 0.662, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.58)

2st

t(253.32) = 0.07, p = 0.944, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.70)

mlq

1st

t(208.96) = 0.94, p = 0.349, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.10 to 3.10)

2st

t(252.55) = -0.17, p = 0.862, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.94 to 2.47)

empower

1st

t(199.62) = 1.32, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.15)

2st

t(254.75) = -0.26, p = 0.793, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.80 to 1.37)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(215.52) = 0.03, p = 0.976, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.76)

2st

t(251.09) = 1.05, p = 0.297, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.51)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(222.92) = -0.76, p = 0.449, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.57)

2st

t(250.15) = -1.49, p = 0.137, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.19 to 0.30)

sss_affective

1st

t(196.28) = 0.27, p = 0.787, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.24)

2st

t(255.00) = -1.59, p = 0.112, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.39 to 0.25)

sss_behavior

1st

t(196.51) = -0.29, p = 0.776, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.95)

2st

t(255.00) = -0.82, p = 0.412, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.92 to 0.79)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(200.36) = 0.29, p = 0.772, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.25)

2st

t(254.63) = -0.89, p = 0.372, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.97 to 0.74)

sss

1st

t(191.95) = 0.10, p = 0.924, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.92 to 3.22)

2st

t(254.01) = -1.11, p = 0.267, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-5.70 to 1.58)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(123.28) = 2.40, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.08 to 0.83)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(110.16) = 1.59, p = 0.230, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.46)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(97.94) = 3.28, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.78 to 3.16)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(103.04) = 1.52, p = 0.264, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.90)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(103.27) = 1.92, p = 0.116, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.58)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(100.88) = 2.20, p = 0.060, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.08 to 1.48)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(116.14) = 2.83, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.74)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(92.74) = -1.99, p = 0.099, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-3.47 to -0.00)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(97.87) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.76 to 1.38)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(100.81) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.81)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(95.46) = 2.17, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.14 to 3.12)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(94.79) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.99)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(99.48) = 1.11, p = 0.538, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.12)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(98.95) = 1.07, p = 0.571, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.38)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(103.38) = 2.77, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.46 to 2.76)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(101.65) = 1.07, p = 0.576, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.08)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(98.89) = 1.50, p = 0.273, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.30)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(96.02) = 1.57, p = 0.241, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.25)

els

1st vs 2st

t(94.34) = 1.70, p = 0.184, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.24)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(94.61) = -2.91, p = 0.009, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-4.70 to -0.89)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(95.07) = 1.71, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.95)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(96.20) = 0.71, p = 0.962, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.19)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(94.76) = 1.32, p = 0.377, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.98)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(118.89) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.59)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(108.18) = -0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.07 to 0.85)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(102.63) = 1.22, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.75)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(104.54) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.25 to 2.41)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(98.70) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.98)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(108.91) = 1.80, p = 0.150, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.33)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(114.21) = -1.76, p = 0.161, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.10)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(96.69) = -3.09, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-2.03 to -0.44)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(96.82) = -1.68, p = 0.194, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.51 to 0.13)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(99.14) = -2.08, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.04)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(94.14) = -2.57, p = 0.023, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-4.74 to -0.61)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(118.22) = 1.01, p = 0.629, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.54)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(106.86) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.56)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(96.21) = 1.65, p = 0.204, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.19 to 2.06)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(100.67) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.41)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(100.87) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.59 to 0.93)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(98.78) = 0.96, p = 0.681, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.98)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(112.04) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.60 to 0.77)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(91.64) = -1.94, p = 0.110, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-3.25 to 0.04)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(96.15) = 0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.02)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(98.72) = -0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.47 to 1.21)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(94.04) = 1.17, p = 0.490, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.25)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(93.45) = 1.54, p = 0.255, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.30)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(97.56) = 1.64, p = 0.207, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.22 to 2.35)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(97.10) = 1.59, p = 0.229, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.29 to 2.63)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(100.96) = 1.22, p = 0.451, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.77)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(99.46) = -1.11, p = 0.539, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.29)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(97.04) = 0.89, p = 0.752, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.01)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(94.53) = 1.17, p = 0.492, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.05)

els

1st vs 2st

t(93.05) = 1.25, p = 0.428, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.86)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(93.29) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.75 to 1.86)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(93.70) = 0.85, p = 0.790, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.42)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(94.69) = 1.31, p = 0.385, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.38)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(93.42) = 1.13, p = 0.520, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.66)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(114.42) = -0.72, p = 0.944, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.29)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(105.15) = 1.99, p = 0.099, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.00 to 1.83)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(100.32) = 1.72, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.93)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(101.98) = 2.08, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.08 to 3.55)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(96.87) = 2.25, p = 0.054, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.12 to 2.00)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(105.78) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.54 to 0.78)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(110.37) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.64)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(95.12) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.77 to 0.74)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(95.23) = -0.73, p = 0.931, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.49)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(97.27) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.69)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(92.88) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.42 to 1.49)

Plot

Clinical significance